Talk:The Gabba

Title

Brisbane Cricket Ground, which is sometimes referred to as The Gabba Shouldn't that be the other way 'round? Does anyone really refer to it as the former? --Paul 17:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The correct title of the ground is Brisbane Cricket Ground, which is still the official name of the ground. The nick-name for the ground as The Gabba only came about as a result of the cricket ground being in the suburb of Woolloongabba.

This is an International encyclopedia, therefore the official name for the ground should remain as the name used for the article.

If you are so keen as to have the article renamed as The Gabba, then make sure that you change every single one of the more than 50 links to the article, from all of the articles which link to the article, at the same time as you 'move' the article to the new name. These link changes are required to be undertaken by a person who makes such a move of title. Figaro 01:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC

I'm not "keen" at all, just making the observation. Wikipedia policy would the suggest The Gabba being the preferred choice, though --Paul 06:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to the Gabba, but I don't have enough edits to do it myself. When I do, I'll move it and do all the links. I don't agree with Figaro's argument. The official name isn't any more commonly used elsewhere in the world, that I know of. When England tours Australia, the ground is always referred to as the Gabba. James James 09:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Check this out. This is Brisbane Council's All about Brisbane site. I'm not saying it is necessarily the voice of the people, but it's a reasonable source. James James 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with changing. Wisden's www.cricinfo.com [1] refers to it as the Brisbane Cricket Ground. It's wrong to say that it's _always_ called the Gabba - I heard it referred to the long name on ABC radio today. See also [2], [3], [4]. The 'Gabba is a nickname. The common name and official name is Brisbane Cricket Ground. And note that of you are going to call it the Gabba, it should strictly be wtitten as "The 'Gabba" with a leading apostrophe as it's a shortening of Woolloongabba as stated above. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The official name of the ground is the Brisbane Cricket Ground. This is actually on the signs above the ticket office if you have a look. There is no need to change the name of the article.--dan, dan and dan 12:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it shouldn't be The 'Gabba (with the apostrophe) as it's short for Woolloongabba.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertising of Cricket portal

User:Jguk has placed a link to the cricket portal at the top of this page. Despite the Gabba's official name, the BCG is a multi-purpose facility and it's beyond reasonable argument that its primary tenant is now the Australian Football League club Brisbane Lions. I've no objection to a link to the portal on this page but surely a See also link is a more appropriate way of notifying people of this portal? The link at the top is more of an advertising banner and is not really in the spirit of Wikipedia's objective of creating an encyclopaedia. --The Brain of Morbius 23:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the issue from your perspective, I can see that labelling all cricket grounds with the cricket portal link is a good idea. In the UK, cricket grounds are just that. When you think of Lords or the Oval you think of cricket – and fair enough. Equally it makes sense to put these links at the top of pages for individuals primarily associated with cricket. But venues like the Gabba or the MCG in Australia are much more than that and despite their official names they are not simply cricket grounds. Without Australian rules football played on them as a winter tenant they simply wouldn’t exist at any level other than as a patch of grass and a pavilion. Labelling them in the way you are immediately brands them as primarily cricket facilities to visitors unfamiliar with them, creating an entirely false impression.

It's a bit like putting For more coverage of cricket, go to the Cricket portal. at the top of Mick Jagger's page, just because he plays cricket. Does he like cricket? Yes. Is that his major claim to fame? No.

The other objection I have to this practise is that when applied to multi-purpose venues, what happens when an Australian Football League portal is created? Do we then put an AFL portal link at the top of these pages as well? The Gabba also hosts rugby, and Olympic soccer, and rugby league, and greyhound racing, and cycling – do we put links to their portals at the top when they’re created too?

For more coverage of cricket, go to the Cricket portal.

For more coverage of AFL, go to the AFL portal.

For more coverage of rugby union, go to the Rugby portal.

For more coverage of rugby league, go to the Rugby league portal.

For more coverage of Olympics, go to the Olympic portal.

For more coverage of greyhound racing, go to the Racing portal.

For more coverage of cycling, go to the Cycling portal.

It's ugly, unwieldy, and obviously the wrong way to go, but this is the way we're headed if the cricket portal link at the top stays... and the same applies for the MCG, the SCG, Adelaide Oval, Bellerive, Marrara, the WACA ground, Cazaly Stadium and pretty much every ground in which cricket is played in Australia.

The whole issue is problematic, but could so easily be solved by placing these links in a See Also section at the bottom of these pages. I like cricket and you're doing a fantastic job of creating the cricket portal. It's great to make people aware of the existence of the portal. This is the wrong way of doing it though.--The Brain of Morbius 00:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

mmmm Only the cricket portal exists of those you list as of date. However, I see it could get confusing or silly in the future. I don't object to the bit about the cricket portal was to lose its bolding and italics and go under a "see also" section - I'll make the change myself. Kind regards, jguk 06:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that's much better. Yes, only the cricket portal currently exist but there's every likelihood that an AFL, rugby and rugby league one will be created in the future--The Brain of Morbius 23:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Rugby League crowd record?

I'm fairly sure a recent Twenty/20 international broke the ground record, not sure, though.

The Twenty/20 match holds the record for the ground in its current configuration. The number of patrons has actually been reduced since the middle of last century, so that record can never be broken... unless further development takes place, of course.--dan, dan and dan 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Brisbane Cricket Ground/The Gabba

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been a recent discussion held at Talk:Brisbane in regards to the name of the Brisbane Cricket Ground/The Gabba. This discussion has been looking at the title of the Brisbane Cricket Ground article. The discussion to date can be seen here. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just request the move already. Users seem 100 percent committed to the fact that the official name is "The Gabba" and have even suggested sources that back it up. It should be a very straight forward move, just request it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. JayKeaton (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a WP:RM request per discussion here and at Talk:Brisbane. I'm not going to add the template as we've already discussed and agreed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The request has been bumped down to a date list, I've never seen that before on the requested moves page. If the request is ignored you will have to ask an admin to do it for you, and if that request is denied then the options will have been exhausted, unless you want to appeal the admin his/herself. Either way the outcome will be known soon. JayKeaton (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a consensus has been achieved on naming yet but I would like to mention that when the ground was opened it was given a name, presumably the "Brisbane Cricket Ground". Unless the board/management change the name of the facility it should be named correspondingly. The usage of a nick name no matter how commonly used should be discouraged because the popularity of a nick name cannot be accurately verified. Using the term the "Gabba" is convienent for the logo and sounds better from a marketing point of view, reasons that do not apply to Wikipedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

While this is its "official" name, hardly anybody actually calls it "Brisbane Cricket Ground" - the most common name for it is by far "The Gabba" or some permutation thereof. I see no problem with using the "common" name for the ground. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

Wait, so "Gabba" isn't the official name for the grounds? I was led to believe that it was. A nickname should never be used as an article name, especially when used for articles about structures. JayKeaton (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, while we're at it, we could move Australia to Commonwealth of Australia, rather than the shortened nickname? If the nickname has near 100% usage, then we should use that instead. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that is a wise decision then be bold and request that move. JayKeaton (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sides: WP:SARCASM. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A nickname should never be used as an article name... That's certainly the view of some Wikipedians, but so far they seem to be in the minority, and Wikipedia:naming conventions gives them no support at all. Have a look at the proposal at Wikipedia:official names which is an attempt to clarify the position. Andrewa (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was watching the news tonight, and there was a representative of some minor sport that nobody follows outside of the Gabba, and clearly visible above the entry gates was a lit up sign that identified the ground as "The Gabba". Perhaps we could describe it as an "official nickname"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC).

• Support move to The Gabba. I'm appalled that any other name would be considered... Many Australian cricket fans would have no idea that it had any other name. Andrewa (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. The official name of the grounds has not been decided on and you can't vote on what the official name is. JayKeaton (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uniform naming

It seems that after discussion and consensus someone with administrative powers moved the article, which means that the move was an official decision and it would be futile to protest it. But now that the official name of the grounds has been determined to be "The Gabba" we must use the official name throughout the article. I have just made some changes to make the article seem a little more uniform and professional, and the old name (a nickname I guess it is) of "brisbane cricket ground) has been added in brackets in the info box as that seemed to be by far the most appropriate place for it. There are also 331 pages that redirect here (with at least 331 redirects as each page contains at least one link) from the old Brisbane Cricket Ground article. Whoever requested the move or did the move seems to have neglected to fix this redirects, so if anyone wants to do their job for them be my guessed. Because of the large volume of articles that linked to Brisbane Cricket Ground I would suggest making a bot to do the work for them (I would do it myself but I do not know anything about bots, so that is that). JayKeaton (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

A good point has been made above regarding the inclusion of an apostrophe in 'Gabba as it is an abbreviation of a longer word. This needs to be fixed.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, as it's just a colloquialism (which has gained higher currency than officialdom) Doesn't really need to conform to language rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.223.90 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree. The word "Gabba" didn't come into existence all on its own. It exists because the word "Wollongabba" came first and was later abbreviated. Pretty simple stuff. This happens a lot in English. And the grammatical rule in English is to have an apostrophe, whether you like it or not.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at it like Albert -> Bert. A self contained name based on another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.155 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gabba

When did the construction begin? 2001:8003:64A0:2001:E1D3:ED49:A82:E50E (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Light towers

What year were the light towers installed at the Gabba 2001:8003:27E6:1501:7D95:865F:CFDF:C380 (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)